Oh come now Nick.... you actually agree with Glen on this point, I'm quite certain of it...
You are pointing out that fish are in water, and Glen is pointing out that fish don't need to know anything about water to swim. (How is that for a metaphor!) Yes, people invoke metaphor (and/or similar rhetorical devices) constantly while communicating. Also, if everyone stopped to fully dissect every metphor used, communication would be impossible. Glen's metaphor that one typically "looks through" the metaphors, just as one "looks through" their glasses, is a good one. You're reply should be something like: Ok, well, you got me there, I confess that I *do* know that my schtick isn't *always* helpful. That said, I think of myself as something like an optometrist in your metaphor, and I think that *sometimes* examining the metaphors is crucial, because a lot of trouble is *sometimes* caused by having the wrong metaphor, just as it can sometimes be caused by the wrong prescription for your glasses. Also, I'm a bit like the man with the hammer: When people seem to be having trouble seeing, my first thought is always that there might be a bad pair of glasses (.When people have trouble thinking, my first thought is always that there might be a problematic metaphor at the heart of it.) Best, Eric <[email protected]> On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 2:22 PM Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, Glen, You win. You have stripped from me any capacity or interest in > how metaphors mean, the limits of what they do and don't convey. I am in > that state. Now, without reference or exploration of any metaphor, please > help me understand what you meant by the following passage: > > *But if you actually want to *understand* what some other agent is trying > to say, you read *through* their text. You use it as a lens. If, every time > you picked up your eyeglasses, you only looked *at* the lenses, those > glasses would be useless as a tool. Every time you meet a missive focusing > on the metaphors used, you are explicitly/purposefully misunderstanding the > author. If metaphors are a tool, you're ignoring their tool-ness. You > promote the means/tool to an end. [⛧] * > > > It's funny, because before you stripped me of my ability to think about > metaphors, I thought I understood you precisely. You want me to take life > just as it presents itself. Ok. I can do that, sort of. It's what I do > most of the time. As we both know, there is nothing simple about how the > world presents itself. There is always a past and a future and the naive > present is always an amalgam of the two. We live neither in nor for the > moment. But I will hum along. What do I see in this case? Well, first I > naively see anger and contempt. I could try to mitigate that experience, > by examining the text, but no, I am not permitted to do that in this world > of naive perception. What I see, is a man incoherent with ... rage? What > I see is a creature lurking in the dark moist crevaces under a bridge > shouting, "Who's that treading over my bridge?" Thats what I naively see. > But none of that is helpful to me in trying to reap the benefit of your > prodigious mind. So I try to NOT take what I see naively to be all that is > there to be seen. I say to myself, this is a man who has given me some > really great working metaphors. This is a man whose thought is respected > widely by people whose thought I respect. Before he stripped my of my > analytical powers, I was led to try and squeeze every bit of juice out of > the dry- skinned fruit he grumpily proffered. Now, I just see an angry man > living in an incoherent world. > > Please, please Glen give me back my powers of analysis so I can see you as > I used to see you. > > N > > On Fri, Mare 20, 2026 at 7:28 AM glen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Fools have more to say, and more impact, than, for example, nit-picking >> grammar nazis. >> >> Anyway, here is the counterargument, AGAIN! OK. I grant you all 5 of your >> points. As a fan of postmodernist approaches, the examination of every >> layer of every narrative in the stack *can* be worthwhile and interesting, >> especially for academics. I'm glad you are also a postmodernist. >> >> But if you actually want to *understand* what some other agent is trying >> to say, you read *through* their text. You use it as a lens. If, every time >> you picked up your eyeglasses, you only looked *at* the lenses, those >> glasses would be useless as a tool. Every time you meet a missive focusing >> on the metaphors used, you are explicitly/purposefully misunderstanding the >> author. If metaphors are a tool, you're ignoring their tool-ness. You >> promote the means/tool to an end. [⛧] >> >> People use their deeply embedded metaphors to communicate. If all you can >> do is yap about their metaphors, you are blocking their ability to >> communicate and your ability to understand what they mean. >> >> I'll turn your moral back around on you. You can choose to ignore my >> counter argument, yet again. Or you can tell me why it's more important to >> look at the lens than through the lens. [⛤] >> >> >> [⛧] A good analogy, here, is that of paraphilia < >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia>. You have a fetish. Rather >> than a metaphor *enhancing* your ability to see the world, you've >> fetishized them. You think the metaphor *is* the world. Like a fetishist, >> you're aroused by the tool, not the objective. >> >> [⛤] I can shunt a counter-counter argument in advance. In a mostly >> rhetorical world, if you merely look *through* the metaphor, you're at risk >> of being a victim of purposefully designed narratives, intended to exploit >> or mislead you. Therefore, a critical thinker must *also* look at the >> lenses, not merely through them. But this argument fails because if you >> can't even look through the lens in the first place, then you can never >> critically analyze how it [mis]directs your gaze. So the *first* and >> primary skill is to be able to look *through* metaphors. Looking at them is >> a secondary skill. And, like the grammar nazis, a fetish for the form >> preemptively excludes an understanding of the function. >> >> On 3/19/26 1:10 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: >> > 1. Metaphors are everywhere. We can disclaim them all we like, but >> they are deeply embedded in the way in which we proceed from thought to >> thought. They lurk in how professionals talk to one another and also in >> the manner in which professionals talk to the public. >> > 2. There is a lot of evidence these days that scientists have "lost" >> the public. This is a very dangerous situation. My suspicion is that this >> has to do with the metaphors we use when we talk to the public about what >> we do. >> > 3. We all seem to agree that there is truth and falsehood disguised in >> every metaphor. >> > 4. Given the ambiguity of metaphors, I am interested in a method for >> understanding their role in thought and communication, particularly in >> understanding the manner in which truth and falsehood is deployed in them. >> How are we to distinguish between a better and a worse metaphor if all >> contain elements of falsehood. What am I to take from your metaphor? What >> are you to take from mine? >> > 5. Given the entanglement of truth and falsehood in metaphor, it's >> worth exploring distinctions between what implications a speaker intends by >> a metaphor, what the coherence of the metaphor can logically sustain by way >> of implication, and what implications hearers take from the metaphor. >> -- >> ¡sıɹƎ ןıɐH ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ >> ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα >> σώσω. >> >> >> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> > > > -- > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology > Clark University > [email protected] > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson > https://substack.com/@monist > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
